Judgment 2053

Consideration 8

Extract:

The complainant was on leave without pay for a period of 2 years and 8 months. There being no suitable post at the end of this period, this leave was extended for another 2 years. "What the complainant asked for [at the date of her reintegration] was the recalculation of her reckonable experience and her grade; in other words she was seeking promotion as a result of experience gained while on unpaid leave. Promotion is carefully regulated under Article 49 [of the Service Regulations]. This article provides for six different types of promotion, but there is no provision for promotion for having gained additional experience while on leave. Nor is there provision for any recalculation of the calculation made on recruitment. This claim fails."

Judgment 2052

Consideration 6

Extract:

"The decision not to give permission to spend sick leave elsewhere than at the staff member's place of residence is clearly discretionary in nature. It is well-established by the case law of the Tribunal that a discretionary decision is subject to limited review."

Keywords:

Judgment 2051

Consideration 11

Extract:

The complainant had applied for another post within the organization. While he was on leave in order to prepare his daughter's wedding, he was invited by telephone to attend an interview within two days. The complainant having stated he would not be able to attend the interview in that timeframe, his name was deleted from the list of candidates taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. "The failure to give reasonable notice to the complainant to attend an interview by refusing to take into account the family circumstances of the complainant at the time, followed by the elimination of the complainant from consideration when he could not attend, constitutes [a] flaw in the procedure adopted by the administration in respect of the selection for this post."

Judgment 2049

Consideration 5

Extract:

After lenghty negociations, the complainant accepted the offer of separation by mutual agreement (which increased by 50% his termination indemnity on the condition that he would not challenge the decision of separation either before the Appeals Board or the Tribunal). He pleads lack of consent. "The complainant cites financial difficulties and a 'reactive anxio-depressive clinical context' to demonstrate that he was in no state to consent freely. But the evidence shows that he had been examined by an expert chosen by mutual agreement between his doctor and the chief medical officer of [the organization] and that he had been found fit to resume work as from June 1996. There are no grounds for doubting that the complainant had all his mental faculties when, after lengthy negotiations, he finally accepted an offer which afforded him significant financial benefits. He has neither proved that his consent to the negotiated termination was deficient nor provided any evidence to cast doubt on its validity."

Judgment 2047

Consideration 11

Extract:

"The complainant adopts the position taken by the Appeals Committee to the effect that the [organisation] was obligated to appoint its own medical officer for the purposes of dealing with her claim and was not entitled to rely on the medical adviser appointed by [the insurance company] Van Breda for that purpose. For the Tribunal to so hold would amount to a denial of the organisation's right to appoint the medical officer of its choice. The fact that it selects and relies on the same medical adviser as the one appointed by the insurer, whom it has engaged to carry out its obligations to provide health coverage to its staff, is not in the least surprising. Such appointment cannot have any adverse effect upon the complainant who retains the right given by Article 90 [of the Service Regulations] to have any contested issue relating to medical matters determined by the Invalidity Committee."

Reference(s)

Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 90 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS

Keywords:

Consideration 13

Extract:

"With regard to the complainant's claim to be provided with copies of any medical reports relied upon by [the insurance brokers] Van Breda, it is trite law that a staff member's right to see medical reports may not ordinarily be challenged. As such, the complainant should be provided with copies of medical reports contained in Van Breda's file relating to this matter. Whether or not the [organisation] has these documents in their possession is irrelevant. As the policy holder, it has the right to give instructions that the complainant be given access to these documents and must ensure that she is provided with the information as soon as reasonably possible. [...] It is of no avail that some or all of the reports in question may have been given by the complainant's own doctors: she is entitled to know from Van Breda exactly what medical information about her it has received and from whom."

Judgment 2040

Consideration 5

Extract:

"As the Tribunal has held in many judgments, a decision by an international organisation to make an appointment is a discretionary one and as such is subject to only limited review. It may be quashed only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases and will not replace the organisation's assessment of the candidates with its own (see Judgment 1497 [...])."

Judgment 2039

Consideration 4

Extract:

"Precedent says that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of the complainants' rights. Complainants may therefore go straight to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to decide on an issue within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see Judgments 1829, [...], 1968, [...], and the numerous judgments cited therein). However, a complainant can make use of this possibility only where he has done his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1674, [...] under 6(b), and 1970 [...]). In general, a request for information on the status of the proceedings or the date on which a decision may be expected is enough to demonstrate that the appellant wants the procedure to follow its normal course, and gives grounds for alleging unjustified delay if the authority has not acted with the necessary diligence. However, there are circumstances in which it is unclear whether the procedure has been abandoned or whether the staff member has implicitly consented to the suspension of his appeal in law or in fact. In such cases, the case law says that the staff member must indicate clearly if he wants the procedure to continue. For example, the Tribunal found in one case that a staff member had not met this requirement because an internal appeal he had filed was not referred to the internal appeals body of the organisation, the administration having taken steps to reach an agreed settlement to the dispute. As the staff member had not sought the continuation or renewal of the procedure, it was found that he had not pursued his appeal "diligently" and so did not qualify to file a complaint directly with The tribunal (see Judgment 1970). Similarly, in a case in which the internal appeal had been followed by negotiations in order to reach a settlement, it was found that the staff member was not justified in turning to the Tribunal without first indicating either that the procedure should follow its course in parallel with the negotiations or that it should be taken up again without further ado, and then waiting a reasonable time to see what happened (see Judgment 1674 under 6(b))."

Judgment 2037

Consideration 3

Extract:

The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.

Judgment 2034

Consideration 11

Extract:

"The Tribunal has consistently held that reinstatement is subject to two conditions. First, there must be a vacant post and, secondly, the staff member must be qualified for it. [Moreover], reinstatement is inadvisable when an employer has valid reasons for losing confidence in an employee. And [the organisation] has. It is common ground that the complainant recorded and transcribed a conversation he had with [his supervisor] without the latter's knowledge. Even if he did so in an attempt to support his case, such behaviour is unacceptable and fully warrants the [organisation]'s loss of confidence. That being so, reinstatement is not advisable."

Judgment 2032

Consideration 17

Extract:

"Exemption from national taxes is an essential condition of employment in the international civil service and is an important guarantee of independence and objectivity. It cannot be made to depend upon the whim of national taxing authorities [...]."

Keywords:

Consideration 14

Extract:

"Where a State imposes tax upon its nationals who are international civil servants in receipt of income some of which is tax exempt and some of which is not the only proper method of determining how much tax should actually be paid is to calculate the hypothetical amount which would be due if the exempt income had not been received."

Keywords:

Consideration 15

Extract:

"If a Member State in breach of its international obligations taxes the exempt income of a staff member, the reimbursement of that tax cannot be made to depend upon the grace and favour of that State."

Keywords:

Consideration 17

Extract:

"If the organisation does not [...] contest the exempt status of the complainant, it is its duty to protect him against the claims of the authorities of a Member State, to reimburse him the amount of tax he has paid to the State, and to employ its own considerable power, authority and influence to have the [...] authorities [of that state] change their position. [...] By requiring him to appeal against his [...] tax assessment while conceding the tax-exempt status of his [...] income the organisation has failed in its duty to the complainant."

Judgment 2027

Consideration 4

Extract:

"Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."

Consideration 12

Extract:

"A quantitative difference in duties rather than a difference in their nature or intrinsic importance is not a decisive criterion on which to base a difference in grade between two officials who perform exactly the same duties."

Judgment 2025

Consideration 10

Extract:

The complaint was transferred to the field against his liking. At the end of the internal procedure, the organisation decided to reassign him to Headquarters. "It thereby admitted [...] that it had failed to assess the complainant's circumstances with the care required by administrative decisions that affect its staff. That in itself warrants the conclusion that, even though his assignment [to Headquarters] met the complainant's wishes in part, it did not fully make up for the injury caused by his transfer [to the field]. Consequently [...] the Director-General was wrong not to award him the compensation he had claimed."

Judgment 2021

Consideration 23

Extract:

"The concerns expressed by the complainant with regard to the fact that [the President of the Tribunal] and [one of the organisation's senior officers] both attended the same school and that [the President] was Director of an institute at which [another senior officer] taught are [...] without merit [...] If his opinion were to be followed, students having attended an institution should be prevented from judging cases in which the names of other students of the same institution appear."

Keywords:

application for review; bias; degree; international civil servant; president of tribunal; same;

Judgment 2018

Consideration 15

Extract:

The decision not to confirm the complainant's appointment after a probationary period and to terminate his employment prior to the expiry of his fixed-term contract is quashed. "The complainant is entitled to be reinstated in his post or in one of an equivalent grade with full salary and benefits (including any salary increases which he would have received if he had not been terminated) to the end of his fixed-term appointment."

Consideration 8

Extract:

The complainant's appointment was not confirmed after a probationary period and his employment was terminated before the expiry of his fixed-term contract. "The Tribunal finds that the Staff Regulations, Rules and Administrative Directives in force at the time do not contain specific provisions for the non-confirmation of fixed-term appointments during or at the end of a probationary period. The provisions relating to the termination of fixed-term appointments without probationary periods therefore apply."

Considerations 14 and 15

Extract:

The complainant attacks the decision not to confirm his appointment after a probationary period and to terminate his employment prior to the expiry of his fixed-term contract. "The Tribunal [...] notes that [...] the organisation's legal division advised the administration of the procedure to be followed in terminating the complainant's appointment. Specifically [...] the administration was advised of its obligation to set up a special advisory board to investigate the case and to report back to the Director-General. This advice, like the [...] findings of the Special Advisory Board, appear inexplicably to have been simply ignored by the Director-General. In the circumstances, the impugned decision [...] must be quashed."

Consideration 12

Extract:

"Discussions between the complainant and his supervisors [...] with respect to relatively minor concerns do not constitute a warning so as to make the complainant aware of the risk of dismissal and the need for improvement."

Judgment 2017

Consideration 2 (A)

Extract:

"The complainant enjoyed the status of official from October 1974 to the end of December 1992. From 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994 he was employed on the basis of special agreements, which contained an arbitration clause providing for an "arbitral panel" composed of three members. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore limited to the effects of the relationship between the [organisation] and the complainant from October 1974 to the end of December 1992."

Judgment 2016

Consideration 2

Extract:

"As emphasised by the [organisation], the applicable interim Staff Rules provide that the education grant is calculated on the basis of expenses actually incurred. The complainant cannot therefore claim grants calculated on the hypothetical basis of the costs that would have been incurred had he remained in service."

Judgment 2014

Consideration 17(D)

Extract:

The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."